7
0
I upgraded my Windows 7 PC from a Samsung Spinpoint F4EG HD204UI HDD to a SanDisk Pulse SDSSDP-128G-G25 SSD but, unlike seemingly everyone else in the world, I have never noticed a performance increase - system or program startup, etc.
A 5 1000MB CrystalDiskMark 64-bit version 3.0.3.b test on the SSD:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 244.966 MB/s
Sequential Write : 33.956 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 177.489 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 10.441 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 11.718 MB/s [ 2860.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 10.086 MB/s [ 2462.4 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 27.991 MB/s [ 6833.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 6.606 MB/s [ 1612.7 IOPS]
Test : 1000 MB [C: 91.6% (109.1/119.1 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2015/06/16 20:03:27
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
Even though those stats aren't terrible, it really doesn't seem like the system is operating at that capacity and, according to Kingston SSDNow V300 PCSTATS Review - SSD Benchmarks: CrystalDiskMark 3, AS SSD, others have had significantly better results than I have with SSD performance.
Comparatively, a 5 1000MB CrystalDiskMark 64-bit version 3.0.3.b test (same as above) on the HDD:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 3.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2013 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 byte/s [SATA/300 = 300,000,000 byte/s]
Sequential Read : 85.479 MB/s
Sequential Write : 81.741 MB/s
Random Read 512KB : 27.918 MB/s
Random Write 512KB : 40.336 MB/s
Random Read 4KB (QD=1) : 0.319 MB/s [ 78.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=1) : 0.670 MB/s [ 163.6 IOPS]
Random Read 4KB (QD=32) : 0.445 MB/s [ 108.7 IOPS]
Random Write 4KB (QD=32) : 0.568 MB/s [ 138.8 IOPS]
Test : 1000 MB [D: 98.4% (1833.4/1863.0 GB)] (x5)
Date : 2015/06/16 20:18:05
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
In answer to the most common questions:
"Was Windows reinstalled?"
I don't recall. The SSD order acknowledgement email is dated 2012/11/23 and wmic os get installdate
reports 20130117141810.000000+000
so that would suggest so but I am one for imaging (of which I usually use Acronis True Image) and I doubt imaging would change that date but I will answer imaging-related questions too just in case.
"Were the sectors aligned by 1024?"
No, but I believe it's too late now.
"Is SATA in AHCI mode?"
It wasn't for a long time but I enabled it in the BIOS and tweaked the registry to force the install of compatible drivers in Windows a few months ago and it didn't made a difference.
"Is TRIM enabled?"
Yes. fsutil behavior query DisableDeleteNotify
reports 0
.
"Is the defragsvc (Disk Defragmenter) service disabled?"
Yes.
"Is indexing disabled?"
No, but I believe that wouldn't cause a performance decrease (or lack thereof) like this.
"Are there any related Error or Warning System events?"
Not that I can see or have ever noticed.
"Was it a cheap / bad SSD?"
It was £44.15 ($69.09) and is generally rated ~9/10. See Sandisk Pulse 128GB 2.5inch SSD - Ebuyer
"Has it degraded?"
A scan with SSDLife Free version 2.5.82 says it's absolutely fine but is missing a few details:
Update 2015/06/16 22:34: In response to @Jet, @Paul, and @JulianKnight.
"Is the SysMain (Superfetch) service disabled?"
No, but, from what I've read, doing so can be counterproductive, even with an SSD.
"Did the performance decrease as storage usage increased?"
If I recall correctly, there has never been a performance increase, even when Windows was freshly installed and, therefore, barely using any of the available storage. It currently has 10.1GB of 119GB free (8.5%).
A 3 1GiB (default) CrystalDiskMark 64-bit version 4.0.3a test on the SSD:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 4.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 262.641 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 134.803 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 33.444 MB/s [ 8165.0 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 14.342 MB/s [ 3501.5 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 242.868 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 125.209 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 13.668 MB/s [ 3336.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 13.472 MB/s [ 3289.1 IOPS]
Test : 1024 MiB [C: 91.5% (109.0/119.1 GiB)] (x3)
Date : 2015/06/16 22:36:35
OS : Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 [6.1 Build 7601] (x64)
Update 2015/06/17 18:57: In further response to @Paul.
WinDirStat version 1.1.2.80 scan of the SSD pre-cleanup (~8.8% free):
WinDirStat version 1.1.2.80 scan of the SSD post-cleanup (27.8% free):
Update 2015/06/18 00:46: In response to @Bigbio2002 and @CarlB.
msinfo.exe
> Components
> Storage
> Disks
reports the SanDisk SDSSDP128G ATA Device
's Partition Starting Offset
value as 105,906,176 bytes
. 105906176 / 512 = 206848. 206848 / 8 = 25856. So, as it's a whole number, the sectors are aligned?
I will try a new SATA cable tomorrow.
I will also time my initial system and program startup to get a more specific idea of the performance.
Update 2015/06/18 19:00
I have replaced the SSD's SATA cable.
Here are the times:
- 00:00:00: Power button pushed.
- 00:00:42: Logon screen loaded. Logged on.
- 00:00:53: Desktop available. Opened Google Chrome.
- 00:02:10: Google Chrome open. Opened Photoshop CS6 64-bit.
- 00:02:35: Photoshop CS6 64-bit open. Opened Outlook 2013 (2 email accounts between 1 GB and 2 GB each).
- 00:03:25: Outlook 2013 open. Opened iTunes.
- 00:03:42: iTunes open.
Admittedly, I do have quite a few startup items and Google Chrome extensions. Each program does open much quicker after the startup has completed but I still wouldn't say lightning quick.
Update 2015/06/25 16:09:
Today, as part of work, I cloned a Samsung ST1000LM024 1TB HDD to a Crucial CT1000MX200SSD1 1TB SSD in a Lenovo B5400 80B6 running Windows 8.1 Pro which was plagued with problems but after fixing the boot records I ran a 3 1GiB (default) CrystalDiskMark 64-bit version 4.0.3a test:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskMark 4.0.3 x64 (C) 2007-2015 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World : http://crystalmark.info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* MB/s = 1,000,000 bytes/s [SATA/600 = 600,000,000 bytes/s]
* KB = 1000 bytes, KiB = 1024 bytes
Sequential Read (Q= 32,T= 1) : 496.050 MB/s
Sequential Write (Q= 32,T= 1) : 490.690 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 359.141 MB/s [ 87680.9 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 346.611 MB/s [ 84621.8 IOPS]
Sequential Read (T= 1) : 301.568 MB/s
Sequential Write (T= 1) : 490.550 MB/s
Random Read 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 27.512 MB/s [ 6716.8 IOPS]
Random Write 4KiB (Q= 1,T= 1) : 82.835 MB/s [ 20223.4 IOPS]
Test : 1024 MiB [C: 22.6% (210.2/930.2 GiB)] (x3)
Date : 2015/06/25 15:50:28
OS : Windows 8.1 Pro [6.3 Build 9600] (x64)
These are the kinds of speeds I expected.
My colleague ran the same test on his SSD at home and although it wasn't as fast as this SSD it was still miles ahead of mine.
http://www.pc-specs.com/storage/SanDisk/SDSSDP-128G_128GB/448, http://www.scan.co.uk/products/128gb-sandisk-pulse-25-ssd-7mm-slim-sata-iii-6gb-s-mlc-flash-read-490mb-s-write-350mb-s-8000-iops-pc, and http://www.dabs.com/products/sandisk-128gb-ssd-sata-6gb-s-2-5--solid-state-drive-870X.html all say that my SanDisk SDSSDP128G features read speeds of 490 MBps and write speeds of 350 MBps and is well-reviewed.
All of this is making me think that my SSD is faulty. I very much doubt it but I will see if it has any kind of extended warranty.
Update 2015/06/25 19:38:
According to http://www.sandisk.co.uk/about-sandisk/warranty-and-user-guides/warranty-table/#Table5, SanDisk Solid State Drives have a warranty period of 3 years. Today is 2015/06/25 and I bought it 2012/11/23 so I still have a good couple of months of warranty left. As advised by SanDisk's Twitter team I have contacted their customer care and am currently awaiting their response.
Also, a Speccy 64-bit version 1.28.709 scan on the SSD:
SanDisk SDSSDP128G ATA Device
Manufacturer SanDisk
Heads 16
Cylinders 15,566
Tracks 3,969,330
Sectors 250,067,790
SATA type SATA-III 6.0Gb/s
Device type Fixed
ATA Standard ACS2
Serial Number 123917400287
Firmware Version Number 2.0.0
LBA Size 48-bit LBA
Power On Count 1562 times
Power On Time 404.1 days
Speed Not used (SSD Drive)
Features S.M.A.R.T., APM, NCQ, TRIM, SSD
Max. Transfer Mode SATA III 6.0Gb/s
Used Transfer Mode SATA II 3.0Gb/s
Interface SATA
Capacity 119 GB
Real size 128,035,676,160 bytes
RAID Type None
S.M.A.R.T
Status Good
S.M.A.R.T attributes
05
Attribute name Retired Block Count
Real value 0
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 0000000000
Status Good
09
Attribute name Power-On Hours (POH)
Real value 404d 3h
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 00000025E3
Status Good
0C
Attribute name Device Power Cycle Count
Real value 1,562
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 000000061A
Status Good
AB
Attribute name Program Fail Count
Real value 0
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 0000000000
Status Good
AC
Attribute name Erase Fail Count
Real value 0
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 0000000000
Status Good
AD
Attribute name Wear Leveling Count
Real value 237
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 00000000ED
Status Good
AE
Attribute name Unexpected Power Loss Count
Real value 113
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 0000000071
Status Good
BB
Attribute name Reported Uncorrectable Errors
Real value 0
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 0000000000
Status Good
E6
Attribute name Life Curve Status
Real value 790
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 0000000316
Status Good
E8
Attribute name Endurance Remaining
Real value 0
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 5
Raw Value 0000000000
Status Good
EA
Attribute name Vendor Specific
Real value 1,037
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 000000040D
Status Good
F1
Attribute name Lifetime Writes to Host
Real value 7,715,083,148
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 00CBDAD38C
Status Good
F2
Attribute name Lifetime Reads from Host
Real value 10,210,604,495
Current 100
Worst 100
Threshold 0
Raw Value 00609975CF
Status Good
Partition 0
Partition ID Disk #2, Partition #0
File System NTFS
Volume Serial Number 94976081
Size 99 MB
Used Space 34.1 MB (34%)
Free Space 65 MB (66%)
Partition 1
Partition ID Disk #2, Partition #1
Disk Letter C:
File System NTFS
Volume Serial Number 829CF24F
Size 119 GB
Used Space 87 GB (73%)
Free Space 31.8 GB (27%)
33MB/s write speed is tooo low for SSD... my old HDD has 50MB/s write speed – Jet – 2015-06-16T19:33:30.347
Have you tried to disable
Superfetch
? – Jet – 2015-06-16T19:34:48.937Can you try with a smaller size, 50MB for example. Also switch to the latest release (4.03) of CDM. I'm getting between 4 and 50 times the performance on my Surface Pro 3. – Julian Knight – 2015-06-16T20:58:47.337
run AS SSD Benchmark (http://alex-is.de/PHP/fusion/downloads.php?cat_id=4&download_id=9) and post a picture. Maybe you run in IDE mode instead of AHCI.
– magicandre1981 – 2015-06-17T04:47:15.8401Try changing the SATA cable. Have had issues with what looked like a good one, but turned out a new cable fixed the issue. – Carl B – 2015-06-17T18:34:35.953
Unfortunately even formatting and reinstalling Windows won't automatically resolve the performance issue I described. You'd need a way to reset the complete drive usage. You would need to run something like the linux BLKDISCARD. This will clean the entire drive after this you can install a fresh Windows copy. – Paul – 2015-06-17T18:42:42.670
I suspect that your writes are requiring erases. – David Schwartz – 2015-06-17T23:46:56.577
@DavidSchwartz Can you expand on that? – mythofechelon – 2015-06-18T12:42:11.583
@mythofechelon The write speed you are seeing is roughly equal to the SSD's erase speed. If there aren't erased blocks available, and your SSD isn't overprovisioned, this is exactly the kind of performance I'd expect. – David Schwartz – 2015-06-18T17:27:58.023
post a picture the AS SSD Benchmark window! – magicandre1981 – 2015-06-20T06:16:53.363
The numbers from your other computer shown in the " the kinds of speeds I expected" screenshot (which runs on SATA-600) are physically impossible with SATA-300. Your SSD is quite "OK" for an elderly cheap SSD which is almost completely full (nearly reaching the theoretical maximum on sequential read). It only really sucks at small writes, but again for a cheap disk that is not surprising. – Damon – 2015-06-25T15:48:15.170
@Damon I think that's more to do with the versions of CrystalDiskMark. Both tests on my SSD and HDD with version 3.0.3.b were SATA/300 but both tests on my SSD and the other SSD with version 4.0.3a were SATA/600.
I know I didn't exactly get an expensive SSD but I'm not even getting close to the speeds defined in the specifications. – mythofechelon – 2015-06-25T18:48:46.397
You can not directly compare both SSD devices (even less when the sectors are not aligned): https://ssd.userbenchmark.com/Compare/SanDisk-SSD-128GB-vs-Crucial-MX200-1TB/m330vs3578 13 MB/s random write 4k and 240/120 sequential read/write is not bad for a device of 2012. Were you able to use the device's warranty?
– OscarGarcia – 2019-06-07T11:30:01.663